FRED THORNTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred by clearing the courtroom without satisfying the prerequisites for closure required by statute and case law.
During a trial for an attempted lewd or lascivious act, the trial court, sua sponte, cleared the courtroom of spectators while the minor victim testif…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To A Public Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Fred Thornton, challenges the judgment and sentence imposed upon him after a jury found him guilty of committing an attempted lewd or lascivious act in the presence of a child. We reverse.
During the trial, the trial court, without any party requesting it, cleared the courtroom of all spectators while the minor victim testified. The appellant objected on the ground that clearing the courtroom would deny him the right to a public trial.
Section 918.16, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that in a trial when any person under the age of sixteen is testifying concerning any sex offense, the court shall clear the courtroom of all persons except several enumerated individuals. This court in Pritchett v. State, 566 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 570 So. 2d 1306 (Fla.1990), held that before a trial court orders closure it must satisfy the four prerequisites enunciated in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). First, the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; second, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; third, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceedings, and fourth, the court must make findings adequate to support the closure. Waller. The trial court in this case failed to apply the Waller prerequisites and apparently did not adhere to section 918.16 when it cleared the courtroom of even those individuals authorized under the statute to be present. This was error and requires reversal for a new trial. Pritchett; see Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1977). We reverse the judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clements v. State, 742 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…ial. The court ordered that all persons not permitted by section 918.16 leave the courtroom. On appeal, Clements asserts that Pritchett v. State, 566 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d [*340] DCA), review dismissed, 570 So. 2d 1306 (Fla.1990) and Thornton v. State, 585 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) mandate reversal. In Pritchett, the trial court cleared the courtroom of all spectators, ■without any analysis whether complete closure was warranted. The Second District reversed because of the trial court’s failure to make findi…
-
Roberts v. State, 816 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…L.Ed.2d 31 (1984), [*1176] and in excluding members of his immediate family when ordering the spectators to clear the courtroom. We agree that these errors require reversal. See Whitson v. State, 791 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Thornton v. State, 585 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Pritchett v. State, 566 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Section 918.16(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that when any person under the age of sixteen is testifying concerning any sex offense, the trial court: shall clear the…
-
Clements v. State, 782 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2001)…PER CURIAM. This Court initially accepted review of the decision of the district court of appeal in Clements v. State, 742 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), on the basis of express and direct conflict with Thornton v. State, 585 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and Pritchett v. State, 566 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Upon further consideration, we determine that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed. It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., a…
Authorities Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984)
- Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1977)
- Pritchett v. State, 566 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)